Biblical Scholar Puts the Final Nail in Charlie Kirk's Credibility Coffin

[canpakes]

it is clear to me that Kirk, who knew very well that he had millions of scholars who placed total confidence in his words,

It’s comments like this that help the entirety of your anti-christian rant find the sewer drain where it belongs.

Clear to you what Kirk knew very well? And an impossible statistic? And no evidence of these so-called scholars? Go ahead chapless ass, give is the names of just the first million of these scholars. I dare ya.

Chapless Ass, if you want to be an anti-Christian bigot, be one. No need to make crap up and blame Kirk. Just own it.

I don’t see where Chap went ‘anti-Christian bigot’, and I don’t think that you can identify it, either, but I see where you have gone bigoted in assuming it.

[Chap]

I'm not at all familiar with Kirk's claims. Watched the video you linked to and fact checked it.

Mak got it right.

The problem I think is that many Christians want to hear what reinforces their faith traditions and are content to take it at face value without ever checking on the content. I think the same way about preachers who preach from the pulpit without opening their Bible, asking the congregation to "turn to" whatever scripture it is, and congregation members who don't open their Bible during Worship Service.

It's a mistake made by many. In the case of Mak debunking Kirk, the appropriate thing for Christians to do would be to fact check in light of history.

By and large, I think many Christians are lazy and again, they're okay hearing what reinforces their religious thinking and faith or personally held social beliefs.

Wolf in sheep's clothing and all that jazz.

The Bible tells us to test the scriptures. I think it wise for believers to test claims made by religious type leaders be it scripture or historical matter.

Confirmation bias is strong these days.

My bold. I think that the killing of Mr Kirk was a crime and a tragedy. But it is clear to me that Kirk, who knew very well that he had millions of scholars who placed total confidence in his words, did not fulfil his Christian duty to be make sure that what he said to his followers was true. He had eagerly taken on the role of being the shepherd of a huge flock of sheep, and it was his duty to make sure that they did not fall off cliffs or eat poisonous weeds.

Yet he seems to have had the habit of speaking with absolute confidence without checking whether his claims were true, well knowing that his followers would say "Wow! I never knew that! But if a well educated good Christian guy like him says it, guess it must be true!". So he fed his followers nonsense and untruths, such as "the word 'foetus' means 'a little human being' ", or "The Founding Fathers were mostly Bible believing Christians, not Enlightenment deists", knowing that they would swallow it all whole. When I was myself a believing Christian I would have expected that after his death Kirk would have risked at least some pretty sad head-shaking from Jesus, though one hopes he did not get the full "Depart from me - I never knew you!" routine.

I notice that much is being made of the word 'scholars' in the first para of my post - that is perfectly understandable, since that word should have been 'followers'. I'm sorry for this mistake, which was the result of the rather complicated drafting process through which my post passed. So the text by me in the above post should have read as follows (correction bolded):

My bold. I think that the killing of Mr Kirk was a crime and a tragedy. But it is clear to me that Kirk, who knew very well that he had millions of followers who placed total confidence in his words, did not fulfil his Christian duty to be make sure that what he said to his followers was true. He had eagerly taken on the role of being the shepherd of a huge flock of sheep, and it was his duty to make sure that they did not fall off cliffs or eat poisonous weeds.

Yet he seems to have had the habit of speaking with absolute confidence without checking whether his claims were true, well knowing that his followers would say "Wow! I never knew that! But if a well educated good Christian guy like him says it, guess it must be true!". So he fed his followers nonsense and untruths, such as "the word 'foetus' means 'a little human being' ", or "The Founding Fathers were mostly Bible believing Christians, not Enlightenment deists", knowing that they would swallow it all whole. When I was myself a believing Christian I would have expected that after his death Kirk would have risked at least some pretty sad head-shaking from Jesus, though one hopes he did not get the full "Depart from me - I never knew you!" routine.

Again, I am sorry for the confusion caused. What I am saying here. in essence, is that when I was a Christian I would have classed Kirk as one of the 'false prophets' that Jesus warned us about, for instance:

Matthew 24:24

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Jesus was not the first to give such warnings, of course

Jeremiah 14:14

Then the Lord said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

[Whiskey]

My bold. I think that the killing of Mr Kirk was a crime and a tragedy. But it is clear to me that Kirk, who knew very well that he had millions of scholars who placed total confidence in his words, did not fulfil his Christian duty to be make sure that what he said to his followers was true. He had eagerly taken on the role of being the shepherd of a huge flock of sheep, and it was his duty to make sure that they did not fall off cliffs or eat poisonous weeds.

Yet he seems to have had the habit of speaking with absolute confidence without checking whether his claims were true, well knowing that his followers would say "Wow! I never knew that! But if a well educated good Christian guy like him says it, guess it must be true!". So he fed his followers nonsense and untruths, such as "the word 'foetus' means 'a little human being' ", or "The Founding Fathers were mostly Bible believing Christians, not Enlightenment deists", knowing that they would swallow it all whole. When I was myself a believing Christian I would have expected that after his death Kirk would have risked at least some pretty sad head-shaking from Jesus, though one hopes he did not get the full "Depart from me - I never knew you!" routine.

I notice that much is being made of the word 'scholars' in the first para of my post - that is perfectly understandable, since that word should have been 'followers'. I'm sorry for this mistake, which was the result of the rather complicated drafting process through which my post passed. So the text by me in the above post should have read as follows (correction bolded):

My bold. I think that the killing of Mr Kirk was a crime and a tragedy. But it is clear to me that Kirk, who knew very well that he had millions of followers who placed total confidence in his words, did not fulfil his Christian duty to be make sure that what he said to his followers was true. He had eagerly taken on the role of being the shepherd of a huge flock of sheep, and it was his duty to make sure that they did not fall off cliffs or eat poisonous weeds.

Yet he seems to have had the habit of speaking with absolute confidence without checking whether his claims were true, well knowing that his followers would say "Wow! I never knew that! But if a well educated good Christian guy like him says it, guess it must be true!". So he fed his followers nonsense and untruths, such as "the word 'foetus' means 'a little human being' ", or "The Founding Fathers were mostly Bible believing Christians, not Enlightenment deists", knowing that they would swallow it all whole. When I was myself a believing Christian I would have expected that after his death Kirk would have risked at least some pretty sad head-shaking from Jesus, though one hopes he did not get the full "Depart from me - I never knew you!" routine.

Again, I am sorry for the confusion caused. What I am saying here. in essence, is that when I was a Christian I would have classed Kirk as one of the 'false prophets' that Jesus warned us about, for instance:

Matthew 24:24

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Jesus was not the first to give such warnings, of course

Jeremiah 14:14

Then the Lord said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

When you were a Christian, who would you have not classed as a false prophet?

[Gunnar]

What I am saying here. in essence, is that when I was a Christian I would have classed Kirk as one of the 'false prophets' that Jesus warned us about, for instance:

Matthew 24:24



Jesus was not the first to give such warnings, of course

Jeremiah 14:14

When you were a Christian, who would you have not classed as a false prophet?

Completely irrelevant! Do you really expect Chap to name or list whomever he would not have classed as a false prophet when he was a Christian?

[Whiskey]

When you were a Christian, who would you have not classed as a false prophet?

Completely irrelevant! Do you really expect Chap to name or list whomever he would not have classed as a false prophet when he was a Christian?

Yes. If he knows a false prophet from a prophet, he can certainly do that.

[canpakes]

When you were a Christian, who would you have not classed as a false prophet?

Completely irrelevant! Do you really expect Chap to name or list whomever he would not have classed as a false prophet when he was a Christian?

The more relevant question is how many or which people any given self-proclaimed Christian believes speaks for God, or in God’s voice.

It would appear that there are a few folks who’d make the claim for Kirk.

[Gunnar]

Completely irrelevant! Do you really expect Chap to name or list whomever he would not have classed as a false prophet when he was a Christian?

The more relevant question is how many or which people any given self-proclaimed Christian believes speaks for God, or in God’s voice.

It would appear that there are a few folks who’d make the claim for Kirk.

Since Chap has Whiskey on ignore (if I am not mistaken), chap would probably never have even seen that post, had I never responded to it. He probably would have preferred that. I'm sure he would agree that it doesn't really matter whom he would not have classed as a false prophet when he was a Christian.

One thing I am sure of is that nothing is more deserving of skepticism than what can only be supported by claims of divine prophecy or authority.

[Dr. Shades]

One thing I am sure of is that nothing is more deserving of skepticism than what can only be supported by claims of divine prophecy or authority.

I see what you did there.